JUDGMENT S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. This is an appeal by insurer under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against an award making it liable to pay the compensation.
2. On 25.11.1989 claimant, a third year Engineering student, aged about 20 years, was moving on Haldwani-Kathgodam Road when a truck bearing registration No. USR 9502 caused accident, as a result of which claimant sustained multiple injuries. Effect of the injuries is that claimant lost one year of his study to attain his degree one year late and his leg was shortened by 2 1/2". Medical expert has been examined in this case. He has stated that disability on account of the injuries is 60 per cent. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter and the continuance of disability in future permanently, Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,80,000/-for future pecuniary loss, Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 77,000/-for medical expenses although claimant demanded compensation of Rs. 10,00,000.
3. On perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, we are satisfied that determination of quantum is based on surmises and after assuming certain circumstances which could have been proved by evidence. Though Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in a proceeding before Tribunal and reasonable guess- work is permissible, to come to a conclusion that a Mechanical Engineer who has got good career may be selected in educational premises which is based on surmises without material support, is not warranted. Equally, it could not have been said that the claimant would have been engaged by the State Government as an engineer immediately. Employment by State Government depends on number of vacancies available for which applications were to be invited by Public Service Commission for recruitment for which appointment of the claimant may be delayed. It may also be refused in case appellant has reported previous misconducts or otherwise. Thus, facts and circumstances which could have proved, should not be utilised by Tribunal basing on surmises.
4. In this background if we set aside the award and remit the matter back to grant opportunity to the claimant for adducing better evidence, it would be harsh to him. Undoubtedly, the claimant has sustained injuries, shortening his leg by 2 1/2" which is to continue throughout his life. This would definitely affect the normal life and career of an engineer. No employer would like to appoint a person with physical deficiency when others without such deficiency would be available. Even if he is appointed taking into consideration a sympathetic attitude, it would take some time. In absence of any other material, however, reasonable guesswork of the Tribunal that monthly loss would be at Rs. 2,400/- calls for no interference.
5. Mr. Vineet Saran, learned Counsel for insurer, strenuously contended that the multiplier adopted to determine the compensation amount is unjustified. He submitted that multiplier of 10 would be adequate in the present case to compensate the claimant. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, submitted that the quantum determined calls for no interference as keeping long term suffering to be borne by claimant. There is force in the contention of learned Counsel for both the parties. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances under which there was accident and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant with its future effect, we are satisfied that a lump sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-would be just compensation.
6. If the insurer would have been able to make payment accepting its liability, we might have thought of directing payment of interest at lesser rate. We find that the insurer came forward to contest the litigation to avoid just claim of the injured. Therefore, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is fixed which shall be payable from the date of application till the date of payment. The amount of compensation and interest shall be paid to the claimant within two months from today.
7. By virtue of our interim order a bank draft is said to have been deposited with Tribunal although the same is beyond time stipulated. In view of our final disposal of the appeal the bank draft can be taken back by the insurer if so advised after payment of the amount awarded.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.